There has been a lot of talk on here about the general 'punk' fashion becoming mainstream and the true meaning of punk perhaps disappearing in our world today. However, it is interesting to note that while punk was originally created as an anti-establishment movement, for everyone on the margins of society that were seen as the 'other', there is now a much narrower definition of what constitutes punk. Can we understand punk to now be an elitist group in society? While they do not necessarily conform to the norms of society, they don't let just anyone hang out with them either.
In an earlier post, someone mentioned that in Punk: Attitude "the film ends by suggesting that bands like Limp Bizkit, Sum 41, and Blink 182 are the future of punk is downright embarrassing". Does this not sound a tad elitist? If these bands see themselves as punk, why do people not accept it? I have a male friend (hardcore punk) who expressed that when he saw a girl wearing a My Chemical Romance t-shirt at a Bleeders concert, he wanted to 'smash her'. Why is it that one cannot enjoy 'emo' music as well as punk? It seems ironic and even a bit sad that a movement which originated to give people who were shunned by society an outlet and voice, now shuns others in turn who they don't deem worthy to be part of their movement.
3 comments:
I agree. Your idea points out punk's internal clashes. It's a case of limited entry into the inner sanctum. I think a lot of the 'anti' musical subcultures require a kind of fan capital to decode the music and images. There are a lot of hardcore fans claiming ownership and dictating the rules of consumption, especially among the younger or more casual fans who 'violate' the rules of fandom. Today's lecture also kind of opened up the faults with sort of reducing a subculture to an 'us and them' distinction.
Stella
Is it possible that perhaps your view of the punk scene is tarnished by your friend who's not into emo?
Post a Comment